Our Charge The task force is hereby authorized and directed to - - PDF document

1 ALABAMA JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE

Our Charge

“The task force is hereby authorized and directed to study, evaluate, and analyze, a comprehensive review of the state's juvenile justice system and, using a data-driven approach, develop evidence-based policy recommendations for legislative consideration that will accomplish the following:

• Protect public safety;
• Hold juvenile offenders accountable;
• Contain costs;
• Improve outcomes for youth, families, and communities

in Alabama.”

2

Timeline and Process

Stakeholder Engagement

June- August

• Data Analysis
• System Assessment

September

• Research Review
• Data Follow-Up
• Policy Development
• Subgroups

October

• Subgroups
• Policy Development
• Policy Consensus

November

• Policy Consensus
• Final Report

Agenda

1. Roundtable Findings Discussion 2. Follow-Up Data Analysis 3. Research Presentation 4. Lunch Break 5. Discussion of Research Principles/Policy Implications and Alabama Key Takeaways

3

Stakeholder Roundtables

Completed Roundtables  Detention directors June 15  Juvenile judges July 10  Diversion program providers July 12  County commissioners July 17  Youth in facilities July 21, Aug. 17, 22, 30  Probation

• fficers

July 25, 27,

• Aug. 8

Completed Roundtables  Defense counsel July 25, 26  DYS contracted providers July 26  DYS youth Aug. 17, 22  Detention youth and staff Aug. 17, 30  Youth and families Aug. 17  Sheriffs Aug. 23  Mental health providers Aug. 21 Upcoming Roundtables  Families TBD  Prosecutors TBD  Crime Victims, Survivors and Advocates

• Sept. 26

 Educators TBD

Follow-Up Data Analysis

Alabama Juvenile Justice Task Force September 6, 2017

4

7

Data Follow-Up

8

On average, youth with court costs owe $221 per petition

$220 $221 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Average Total Court Costs Per Petition (Fines & Fees)

5

9

On average, youth with restitution owe $868 per petition

$1,029 $868 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Average Total Restitution Per Petition

10

18% of petitions have court costs ordered, increased from 7% of petitions in 2007

7% 18% 2% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percentage of Petitions with Court Costs vs. Restitution

Percentage of Petitions with Court Costs Percentage of Petitions with Restitution

6

11

Court costs average $173 per truancy petition, even higher for misdemeanors

Offense % All Petitions with Court Costs (2016) Average Total Owed in Court Costs Per Petition Felony?

1 CHINS / Truancy

15% $173

2 Unauthorized Use of A Vehicle

7% $195 ✓

3 Unlawful Poss. of Marijuana – 2nd

6% $240

4 Technical Violation / Delinquent

6% $198

5 Disorderly Conduct

6% $204

6 Harassment

6% $205

7 Illegal Poss. of Prescription Drug

5% $201

8 Assault – 3rd

5% $331

9 Theft of Property – 2rd

5% $185 ✓

10 Harassment

3% $190 TOTAL 2,954 $219

Top 10 Offenses with Court Costs, 2016

12

Wide regional variation in average total court costs per petition

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Petitions with Court Costs (2016) Average Total Owed in Court Costs Per Petition

1 Mobile

9% 15% $195

2 Jefferson

13% 0% $52

3 Madison

7% 10% $165

4 Montgomery

5% 4% $116

5 Baldwin

4% 9% $283

6 Morgan

3% 6% $236

7 Cullman

2% 1% $459

8 Talladega

2% 1% $46

9 Houston

2% 6% $269

10 Tuscaloosa

4% 3% $88 TOTAL 504,235 3,275 $221

Average Total Court Costs Per Petition Among Top 10 Counties in Complaints, 2016

7

13

Four of the top 10 offenses with restitution costs are low level; many average near or over $1,000 per petition

Offense % All Petitions with Restitution (2016) Average Total Owed in Restitution Per Petition Felony?

1 Burglary – 3rd

17% $895 ✓

2 Criminal Mischief – 3rd

15% $558

3 Unauthorized Use of A Vehicle

10% $417 ✓

4 Theft of Property – 1st

9% $1,788 ✓

5 Criminal Mischief – 2nd

9% $776

6 Criminal Mischief – 1st

7% $1,224 ✓

7 Theft of Property – 3rd

7% $313 ✓

8 Assault – 3rd

5% $1,679

9 Theft of Property – 2nd

3% $965 ✓

10 Harassment

2% $674 TOTAL 575 $889

Top 10 Offenses with Restitution Costs, 2016

14

Wide regional variation in average total restitution per petition

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Petitions with Restitution (2016) Average Total Owed in Restitution Per Petition

1 Mobile

9% 18% $691

2 Jefferson

13% 8% $1,241

3 Madison

7% 0% $100

4 Montgomery

5% 10% $1,015

5 Baldwin

4% 5% $705

6 Morgan

3% 2% $1,031

7 Cullman

2% 1% $3,382

8 Talladega

2% 3% $507

9 Houston

2% 1% $958

10 Tuscaloosa

4% 3% $526 TOTAL 504,235 662 $868

Average Total Restitution Per Petition Among Top 10 Counties in Complaints, 2016

8

15

Most youth are unable to meet financial obligations, particularly for court costs

6% 5% 15% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percentage of Court Costs Paid vs. Percentage of Restitution Paid

Court Costs Paid Restitution Paid

16

Data Follow-Up Key Takeaways

• The percentage of petitions with court costs has more than doubled over

the past decade, increasing from 7% of petitions in 2007 to 18% in 2017 – On average, youth with court costs owe $221 per petition, including fines and fees – Court costs for truancy average $173 per petition

• Most youth are unable to pay court costs, as only about 5% of court costs

are collected by the court

• There is wide county variation in both the prevalence of court costs and the

amounts ordered

• On average, youth with restitution owe $868 per petition, but only 15% of

restitution is collected by the court

9

17

Overall Key Takeaways

Drivers Analysis and System Assessment

18

Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 1

• Decision-making

– State law requires court referral for certain school-based behaviors and mandates prosecution of parents in certain circumstances

• Local interpretations of statue may vary and lead to disparate

responses to similar school-based behaviors – There is variation across the state in which offenses are eligible for informal adjustments and what conditions are applied – Limited statutory criteria and local interpretation allow inconsistent detention practices

• There is no statewide funding stream for alternatives to detention

pre-adjudication – JPOs report divergent eligibility criteria for consent decrees and inconsistent practices for issuing fees

10

19

Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 1

• Youth flow

– Lower-level offenses account for most cases in the juvenile justice system

• The proportion of referrals coming from schools has increased

mostly due to truancy – Racial and gender disparities exist among complaints (in comparison to the general population) and grows as youth get deeper into the juvenile justice system – There is wide variation in whether counties’ share of complaints is consistent with their share of the youth population – Declines in detention have not kept pace with declines in complaints, and in some regions, detention admissions have increased

• Nearly 300 youth are in detention on a given day, roughly the same

as 2012

20

Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 1

• Youth Flow

– 2/3 of complaints result in petitions, consistent with trends in 2006

• There is variation in how and to what extent counties use informal

adjustments and consent decrees – The proportion of complaints that result in petitions varies by county – The length of informal adjustment/lecture & releases is up 61%; 15% last longer than 6 months

11

21

Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 2

• Decision Making

– Statute allows the court to impose any combination of dispositions or conditions for most youth – Disposition decision making is not informed by a risk and needs assessment statewide – The court has discretion to keep youth under its jurisdiction until they age out of the system, or for longer to repay financial obligations – Youth may be placed out-of-home or have any condition added for any violation of supervision – DYS is not required to use evidence-based services shown to reduce reoffending

22

Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 2

• Youth Flow

– Probation dispositions and DYS commitments have declined more than 50% over the past decade – Racial disparities and gender disparities are present for all decision points and are largest for youth in the adult system – The median length of probation has more than doubled since 2009, despite the fact that the offense profile has not grown more serious

• Nearly 1/3 of probation dispositions last longer than 3 years

– Probation violations are growing as a share of DYS commitments and

• ut-of-home diversion admissions

– Most youth committed to DYS have not been given the opportunity to a non-residential DYS diversion prior to their first commitment – Out-of-home diversion programs cost the state 58% more than non- residential program on average – DYS out-of-home placements cost as much as $161,694 per youth per year, as much as 91 times the cost of probation

12

23

Overall Key Takeaways: Follow-Up Data Analysis

• Youth Flow

– Across the state, 44% of youth charged with an offense for the first time have their cases petitioned in court, including 60% of youth charged with misdemeanors

• Counties vary widely in their proportion of first-time complaints that

are petitioned – Youth who are petitioned on their first complaint have higher rates of reoffending than youth who get informal adjustment on their first complaint

• This difference holds for different offense types

– The majority of charges against youth in the adult system are directly filed without judicial review

• 29% of transferred charges are misdemeanors

Juvenile Justice Research: Implications for Intervention and Policy

Edward P. Mulvey, PhD Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Alabama Juvenile Justice Task Force Montgomery, Alabama September 6, 2017

13

Today’s Objectives

• Current developmental focus in juvenile

justice

• Some findings from the Pathways to

Desistance study

• Challenges for the juvenile justice system
• What makes programs work
• Discussion on implications for program and

policy development

We are in the middle of a “sea change” in the

• rientation of juvenile

justice

14

Developmental Science and Juvenile Justice

Neuroscience + Behavioral science View of an extended period of adolescence

• United States Supreme Court decisions
• Roper
• Graham
• Miller
• Montgomery
• Policy and practice changes
• Statutory changes in age boundaries for jurisdiction and services
• Reduced number of adolescents entering the “front door” of the

juvenile justice system

• Reduced reliance on institutional care
• Promotion of interventions that promote developmental progress

General Framework Recent Supreme Court Cases

• Adolescence
• judgment limited in relevant ways
• transitory
• Supports argument for diminished culpability of

adolescent offenders (mitigation)

• Same factors make them less “deterrable”
• Acts are less of an indication of fully formed and

“depraved” character

15

“Incorrigibility is inconsistent with youth.”

• Miller majority opinion

National Academy of Sciences

• Chartered by Congress in 1863
• Purpose: To advise the government and

the nation on critical national issues through objective, scientific, and evidence-based research and analysis

• Designed to be independent, balanced,

and objective; not an agency of the federal government

30

16

National Academy of Sciences Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach

Committee Charge: To assess the implications of advances in behavioral and neuroscience research for the field of juvenile justice and the implications of such knowledge for juvenile justice reform.

“Different parts at different times”

17

Figure 4 from Steinberg, L. (2013). The influence of neuroscience on U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving adolescents’ criminal culpability. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 513-518

National Academy of Sciences Panel

• n Juvenile Justice: Findings
• Adolescents differ from adults and/or children in three

important ways:

• lack mature capacity for self-regulation in

emotionally charged contexts

• have a heightened sensitivity to proximal influences

such as peer pressure and immediate incentives

• show less ability to make judgments and decisions

that require future orientation

• Behavioral findings line up with biological findings

18

Major Conclusions

• Being held accountable for wrongdoing and accepting

responsibility in a fair process (perceived and real) promotes healthy moral development and legal socialization.

• Predominantly punitive policies and programs do not foster

prosocial development or reduce recidivism.

• No convincing evidence that confinement of juvenile
• ffenders beyond a minimum amount required to provide

intense services reduces likelihood of subsequent

• ffending.
• Pattern of racial disparities impede efforts to provide

equitable services and contribute to perceptions of unfairness.

Proposed Goals of the Juvenile Justice System Promoting Accountability Ensuring Fairness Preventing Re-offending

19

A developmental perspective is NOT

• Exculpatory reason for adolescent antisocial

behavior

• Refutation of deterrence as a goal of

juvenile justice

• A general justification for any “new”

intervention or practice

20

Study design

• Two sites: Philadelphia and Phoenix
• Enroll serious adolescent offenders
• 1,354 felony offenders, aged 14 -18
• Females and adult transfer cases
• Regular interviews over seven years
• Initial interviews
• Time point interviews (background characteristics,

psychological mediators, family context, relationships, community context, life changes)

• Release interviews
• Other sources of information
• Collateral interviews
• Official records

21

Living situation calendar

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Subject 1

900 West Huntington St Gabe’s Hall 900 West Huntington St Gabe’s Hall Vision Quest Youth Forestry Camp

Subject 2

2429 W. Augusta Madison Street Jail 1808 S. Wilmot 1808 S. Wilmot 1808 S. Wilmot Tucson Prison

Subject 3

5050 Master 4th and Norris 4th and Norris 4th and Norris House of Corrections House of Corrections

Who are these adolescents?

• At Enrollment
• 16 years old on average
• 86% males
• Average of two prior court appearances

32% had no prior petitions to court Most of priors were for a person crime

• Ethnically diverse

25% 44% 29% 2%

Caucasian African American Latino Other

22

The “natural course” for juvenile offenders is toward less crime

Self-reported offending

7 year follow-up period – only males – controlling for time on street

High stable 10% Drop-off 21% Lowest 26% Low rising 12% Low stable 31%

23

Proportion of each offending pattern group in each crime group

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Violent Crime Property Crime Weapons Charge Drug Charge Other Persisters Late Onset Desisters Mid stable Low stable 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7

Mean rate of re-arrests in each wave

Number of arrests per days in the community. Ex: 1 arrest in 121 days in community = .008, 1 arrest in 65 days in the community = .015, 3 arrests in 183 days in community = .016

24

Median severity ranking for arrests across time (within month)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 Series1

• Log. (Series1)

1 = status offense, 2=misdemeanor, 3 = possession of narcotics (excluding glue and marijuana), 4 = felony, not part 1, 5=major property felonies, 6=burglary, 7=drug felony, 2nd degree sex offense, 8 =felonious assault, felony w/ weapon 9 =murder, rape, arson

Patterns of Offending

• Finding: Adolescents who have committed serious
• ffenses are not necessarily on track for adult

criminal careers. – Even among serious adolescent offenders,

• there is considerable variability
• the pattern is reduced offending
• Implications: To increase the impact of investments

in justice interventions, it is important to promote decision frameworks or statutes that: – consider cumulative risk and addressable needs and – target services to the highest risk offenders

25

Psychosocial development is related to criminal offending patterns

A Model of Psychosocial Development

• Responsibility

– Ability to take responsibility for one’s decisions – Ability to resist pressure from others

• Perspective

– Ability to consider longer-term consequences – Ability to take others’ perspective

• Temperance

– Ability to control one’s impulses – Ability to regulate one’s behavior

26

Psychosocial Maturity Increases Into the Early 20s

• 1
• 0.5

0.5 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Age

Does trajectory of offending map onto the trajectory of psychosocial development? If so, are particular aspects of psychosocial development more important than others?

27

Trajectories of Offending by Age Persistent Offenders Show “Arrested Development”

28

Persistent Offenders Show Especially Stunted Development of Temperance

Institutional stays don’t do much, if anything, to reduce criminal offending

29

• About 50% of the Pathways adolescents have a juvenile

institutional stay; on average 2-3 stays

• About 75% of the sample have an adult institutional stay; on

average about 5 stays

• Sample spent 37% of their seven year follow-up period in

institutional placement 42 % of juvenile time in placement 30 % of adult time in placement

• No significant site differences in the number of days in

placement.

Patterns of Institutional Placement Institutional placements over 84 months

1 2 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Month Enrolled Adult Setting Juvenile Setting Treatment Facility Community

Subject 691 Age 15

30

Question 1: Does institutional placement reduce or increase offending?

Probation vs. placement

Unadjusted comparison of re-arrest rate

Mean Yearly Rate of Re-Arrest, by Placement Status

0.63 1.20

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 probation placement rate

31

Propensity score matching

• Two step process:
• A propensity score is calculated for each case.

It is the predicted probability that you get placed given all of the background characteristics considered

• Take each placed case and match it to one or

more probation case with similar propensity score

• We then can look to see if the placed group looks

similar to the matched probation group on a variety

• f characteristics that might affect the outcome
• If the groups look alike, we can attribute any

difference in the outcomes to the fact that they were placed

Treatment effect of placement Matched groups

Mean Yearly Rate of Re-Arrest, by Placement Status After Matching 1.06 1.20

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 probation placement rate

No significant differences between groups in rate of re-arrest

32

Question 2: Do longer stays in institutional placement reduce reoffending?

Approach

• Length of stay is broken up into discrete

“doses”

• Methods to get similar cases across different

levels of the “dose”

• 65 of 66 variables show no difference among

the groups, meaning we can rule them out as causes of differences in outcomes

• Response Curve is estimated

33

Effect of length of stay on re-arrest

2.55 1.11 1.08 1.35 1.04 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 > 12 rate

Expected Rate of Re-Arrest, by 3 mo. Dose Category

Finding: For intermediate lengths of stay (i.e., 3-13 months), there appears to be no marginal benefit in terms of re-arrest for longer lengths

• f stay.

Findings

• Overall, no effect of placement on rate of re-

arrest (if anything, it may increase re-arrest)

• For intermediate lengths of stay (i.e., 3-13

months), there appears to be little or no marginal benefit for longer lengths of stay

34

A large proportion of serious adolescent offenders do not receive appropriate community based services

Are these adolescents getting substance use services?

Looking at those adolescents with a diagnosed substance use problem*

Adult Setting Juvenile Setting Community

% with service 55% 61% 30% Average intensity of sessions 1 every 13 days 1 every 3 days 1 every 47 days

* Diagnosed at baseline as present in the past year

35

Pathways Findings: Some “take away” messages

• Variability among even serious offenders
• Drop off in offending is the common pattern
• Development happens and matters
• Institutional placements
• common
• no significant reduction in re-arrest with placement

itself or length of stay

• Substance use treatment works but not accessed

Meeting the Juvenile Justice Challenge

Stolen from Mark Lipsey, PhD Vanderbilt University

36

Part 1. Effective Use of Research to Meet the Juvenile Justice Challenge

• A high proportion of adult offenders (70-80%) were

prior juvenile offenders who appeared in the JJ system

• They were thus on a pathway to continued criminal

behavior that effective JJ intervention might have interrupted But, at the same time:

• A high proportion of the juveniles who come into the

juvenile justice system (70-80%) are not on a path to adult crime; they are just afflicted with adolescence

• Over-involvement with the JJ system can make things

worse for those juveniles

The juvenile justice challenge

37

The juvenile justice challenge

So, the JJ system needs to be able to do three things—

• Distinguish youth at high risk for continued criminal

behavior from those at low risk

• Administer supervision and treatment programs to the

high risk youth that protect public safety and reduce their risk

• Do no harm to the youth at low risk

And do all this in a consistent and sustained manner Some research can help meet this challenge

• Longitudinal research on the developmental paths to

criminality – Risk factors that predict the probability of criminal behavior

• Static background factors & prior history
• Dynamic factors that can be addressed to reduce the

probability of criminal behavior (“criminogenic needs”)

• Evaluation research on the effects of intervention programs

– Therapeutic programs that reduce reoffense rates – Programs that do not reduce reoffending and may increase it

38

Arrest

Counsel & release Diversion; Informal probation Probation Incarceration Level of Supervision Intervention Programs Recidivism Outcomes Program A Program B Program C Program D Program E Program F U% V% W% X% Y% Z%

Prevention Programs

T% Total Reoffense Rate

Effective programs; assessed against evidence-based practice guidelines Minimize reoffending

Evidence-based disposition matrix

Risk assessment and risk-based dispositions Needs assessment; match program to criminogenic needs

The evidence-based juvenile justice system

The essential platform for use

• f these tools: Well-developed

data systems that track juvenile characteristics, service, and outcomes.

39

Part 2. The Critical Component: Effective Evidence- Based Programs The prevailing definition of an evidence-based program (EBP): A certified “model” program

The program part: A ‘brand name’ program

• Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
• Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
• Big Brothers/Big Sisters mentoring
• Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

The evidence-based part: Credible, certified research supporting that specific program

• Blueprints for Violence Prevention
• OJJDP Model Programs Guide
• CrimeSolutions.gov
• NREPP (National Registry of EB Programs & Practices)

40

A broader perspective on EBPs: Evidence-based generic program “types”

• Interventions with research on effectiveness

can be described by the types of programs they represent rather than their brand names, e.g.,

• family therapy
• mentoring
• cognitive behavioral therapy
• These types include the brand name programs,

but also many ‘home grown’ programs as well

• Viewed this way, there are many evidence-

based program types familiar to practitioners

The evidence base

• A comprehensive collection of studies of

interventions for juvenile offenders

• 500+ controlled studies of interventions with

juvenile offenders

• Meta-analyses of delinquency intervention

research studies

• Outcomes: Focus on the programs’ effects on

recidivism (reoffending)

41

Program types sorted by general approach: Average recidivism effect

Control approaches

Multiple services Counseling Skill building Restorative Surveillance Deterrence Discipline

• 10
• 5

5 10 15 % Recidivism Reduction from .50 Baseline Control approaches Therapeutic approaches

• .40 -.30 -.20 -.10 .00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60

Recidivism effects for generic and brand name family therapy programs

Family Interventions Covariate-Adjusted Recidivism Effect Sizes (N=29) Effect Size (zPhi coefficient)

>.00 Median

MST FFT

42

Generic program types with sufficient research to support practice guidelines

• Cognitive-behavioral therapy
• Behavioral contracting; contingency management
• Social skills training
• Group counseling
• Family counseling; family crisis counseling
• Individual counseling
• Mentoring
• Challenge programs
• Victim-offender mediation
• Restitution; community service
• Remedial academic programs
• Job-related programs (vocational counseling, training)

Key characteristics of effective programs

• Use a “therapeutic” approach aimed at internalized

behavior change (vs. external control, deterrence)

• Within a therapeutic category, some program types

are more effective than others (e.g., CBT, mentoring, family therapy)

• For a given program type, service must be delivered

in adequate amounts and quality (dose)

• The more effective programs have an explicit

treatment protocol and procedures for monitoring adherence

• Effects are largest with high risk cases

43

Main takeaway points regarding program improvement

 Limited amount of the available information for

improving the performance of JJ systems is currently being used

 Structured assessment and decision-making tools are

the vehicles for getting research evidence into routine sustained practice

 The critical component for reducing recidivism is

evidence-based programs monitored for quality

 The evidence base for programs supports both

name-brand model programs and no-name generic types of programs

Thank You

Edward P . Mulvey, PhD mulveyep@upmc.edu www.pathwaysstudy.pitt.edu

44

Task Force Discussion

Does the Alabama juvenile justice system align with research showing how to best protect public safety, hold youth accountable, and improve

• utcomes?
• If not, how does Alabama’s system diverge

from the research?

– Are these areas that should be examined during the policy development phase?

Subgroup Planning

• Pre-Adjudication Subgroup

– Pre-adjudication decision-making – Pre-adjudication court process

• Dispositions and Service Expansion Subgroup

– Disposition options – Supervision length – Service expansion

• Oversight and Reinvestment Subgroup

– Reinvestment – System accountability/oversight

45

Next Steps

• Subgroup Meetings (before Oct. 18)
• Stakeholder Roundtables
• October 18th Meeting

– Policy Option Presentations by Subgroups – Policy Option Discussion by Task Force

• November 15th Meeting

– Discussion of Task Force Report